CONFIDENTIAL
offence or, provided that the property is found to be under
of a third party with whom
the convicted person's control,
he
is closely connected.
5.
that:
Hong Kong argue for these new provisions. on the grounds
B
(a) the
Ordinance has provided since 1974 for a Court
to order a convicted Crown servant to repay to the
Crown any unexplained pecuniary resources
disproportionate
to
his
or
official
property
emoluments.
It has however proved extremely
difficult to execute such orders (only about 36% of
the total amount has been recovered) since the
convicted party may have so arranged his affairs as
to put these assets beyond the Court's reach. Hong
Kong have therefore concluded that the Courts must
be additionally provided with the power to order
the
confiscation of unexplained assets that a re
held by another party but are found by the Court to
be in the control of the convicted party.
(b) Hong Kong note that such powers exist in other
jurisdictions, such as the USA
with and Australia,
respect to the proceeds of drug-trafficking, and
the USA with respect to organised crime. Hong Kong
note also that the Hodgson Committee's Report on
"Profits of Crime and their Recovery" recommended
last year that similar powers of confiscation
should be generally available to UK Courts.
Arguments
and
6.
The
new measures that Hong Kong propose are severe,
we have considered them care fully with Legal Advisers.
Legal Advisers have concluded that there i s no legal
objection to the proposals: they observe that they do not
conflict with HMG's human rights obligations in respect of
Hong Kong, and that they are similar to proposals now being
formulated by
by the Home Office for dealing with the profits
CONFIDEN TIAL